d accountability, and require that its acts should be
fraternal in their efforts to bring back the seceded States, and not
sanguinary or coercive."

The Senate resolved, just before the adjournment of the Legislature,
that "Kentucky will not sever her connection with the National
Government, nor take up arms for either belligerent party; but arm
herself for the preservation of peace within her borders."

This was the first authoritative declaration of the policy of
"Neutrality," which, however, had been previously indicated at a Union
meeting held at Louisville on the 10th of April, in the following
resolutions:

"That as we oppose the call of the President for volunteers for the
purpose of coercing the seceded States, so we oppose the raising of
troops in this State to co-operate with the Southern Confederacy."

"That the present duty of Kentucky is to maintain her present
independent position, taking sides, not with the Administration nor with
the seceding States, but with the Union against them both, declaring her
soil to be sacred from the hostile tread of either, and, if necessary,
to make the declaration good with her strong right arm."

In other words, Kentucky would remain in the Union, but would refuse
obedience to the Government of the United States, and would fight its
armies if they came into her territory. Was it much less "criminal" and
"heretical" to do this than to "take sides with the seceding States?"

What is the exact shade of difference between the guilt of a State which
transfers its fealty from the Union to a Confederacy, and that of a
State which declares her positive and absolute independence, entering
into no new compacts, but setting at defiance the old one? Where was the
boasted "loyalty" of the Union men of Kentucky when they indorsed the
above given resolutions?

In May of that year, the _Louisville Journal_, the organ of the Union
party of Kentucky, said, in reference to the response which it was
proper for Kentucky to make to the President's call for troops: "In our
judgment, the people of Kentucky have answered this question in advance,
and the answer expressed in every conceivable form of popular
expression, and finally, clinched by the glorious vote of Saturday, is;
arm Kentucky efficiently, but rightfully, and fairly, with the clear
declaration that the arming is not for offense against either the
Government or the seceding States, but purely for defense against
whatever power